CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You really think they care about your life asher? If you had an open mind you might understand things more. It's nothing to do with you personally.

Exactly. They don't care one bit about the homosexuals, or their rights.

Well said BK

[Nugog]

Aseon - which is why NZ introduced "Civil Unions" - it avoided the whole marriage and the bible(insert favoured religious text here) thing.

It effectively was the government telling the church (NZ is a predominatly christian country) to sod off out of peoples lives.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, Marriage (in a legal, not religious sense) is an act of the state, plain and simple.

Somewhat. Marriage exists outside the state, but the state chooses to recognise it. This has two consequences. 1, the state does not determine what qualifies as marriage, they take marriage already and recognise it.

The state is not permitted to discriminate based on sexual preference in actions that it takes.

Why not? The state is justified in providing all kind of ameliorative benefits that are not distributed on the basis of equality. Marriage is one of those, as the state derives peculiar benefits from marriage, which they cannot get elsewhere.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Oh, this is very true. Voting is not a fundamental freedom, (as is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). However it is an individual right in that it is apportioned per person. You own the right yourself. Marriage is different from both of these in that it cannot be possessed by a sole individual.

No, you "own" the right to be able to marry as well. Just as you have the right to be able to vote. There are situational factors which may or may not allow you to do either. The candidate you want to vote for may not make the ballot. The SO you want to marry may not accept your proposal. Such is life, but it doesn't mean you don't have a right to marry, or a right to vote. It just means a "right" doesn't give you omnipotence.

Your insinuations to the contrary are ludicrous.

You could even marry yourself potentially. (Just as potentially you could vote for yourself as the only candidate and voter.) But either is meaningless as a purely "individual" act. I know you don't want to address those point, because they utterly refute what you are saying.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know you don't want to address those point, because they utterly refute what you are saying.

As I said look at that universal declaration of human rights. Do they say that consent is required for any one of the other rights? No, just marriage.

It's not just me, it's that document too, which is 35 years older then me. Why if it is an individual right, does it require consent in order to be exercised? We do not see this in the right to vote. You have the right to vote, that may not be abrogated. You do not go up to the poll booth, to get consent from the booth in order to vote. That is the difference between the two.

I agree with you that you have the right to pursue marriage. To make the proposal to the woman you love. But you do not have the right to marry without her consent.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As I said look at that universal declaration of human rights. Do they say that consent is required for any one of the other rights? No, just marriage.

It's not just me, it's that document too, which is 35 years older then me. Why if it is an individual right, does it require consent in order to be exercised?

Because in any system of law there will be potential conflicts of the exercise of those rights. The concept of freedom extending until it infringes on another's freedom.

That does not change that they are rights. It's just reality BK. Wake up to it.

We do not see this in the right to vote.

You have the right to vote, that may not be abrogated.

You are ignoring the reality that often times people are not allowed to vote. Age is a restriction. Criminal record is a restriction. Citizenship is a restriction. Voter registration is a restriction. And there are even environmental restrictions that can and do occur.

And of course there are other systems (some would say the US as well) which go even further in disenfranchising voters.

You do not go up to the poll booth, to get consent from the booth in order to vote. That is the difference between the two.

You do have to get consent from the government though. It's called voter registration. Maybe if you stopped your idiotic personification of voting booths for a moment you could understand that fact.

[Aeson]

dp

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Marriage is one of those, as the state derives peculiar benefits from marriage, which they cannot get elsewhere.

No benefit of marriage is not available elsewhere.

You're simply delusional. You think Britney Spears is (or at least was while she was married) a good parent, whereas you think the countless single parents, adoptive parents, non-married couples raising kids, grandparents who raise kids... are failures.

Some may be, others do a far better job than some biological parents. The key to raising a child right is to have loving guardians who will provide for the child and see to their needs. Male and female rolemodels are both important. But who provides those things does not have to be the biological parents.

[Cyclotron]

Obviously then we should rely on my interpretation then which is consistent with what they meant.

How is there any consistency there? The writers of the UDHC made no mention of marriage being between a man and a woman. The idea that they would write anything at all concerning gay marriage in 1948, when being gay - let alone gay rights - was not discussed at all, is preposterous. Read it again (and again, and again) until you comprehend it. Your effort to read your agenda into a 40s era document is laughable, and you misinterpret me - I'm not trying to suggest it supports gay rights. It's not pro-gay or anti-gay, it just is.

The only reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that, as per the UDHC, marriage is a universal, individual human right. If you don't agree with the UDHC, fine, but this is what the world community thinks of the matter.

I would argue they are. The whole concept of the word 'breeder' is an excellent conjuction of both ideals. It would make sense for a population controller to elevate gay people above the breeders, as this would accomplish several ends at the same time.

This makes no sense. Firstly, nobody is trying to elevate gay people "above" anybody else, they're trying to give them equality. Secondly, giving gay people the right to marry has no bearing on their propensity to raise children or lack thereof. A gay person's ability to marry has no bearing on their decision to have children; the act of getting married does not make anybody more or less gay.

I would be intrigued in anyone who supported gay rights, who also was against the population control movement, I've not seen anyone who was for one and against the other.

That's not because of us, it's because of you. Opposition to homosexual rights and opposition to some of the primary means of birth control are both strongly linked to conservative Christianity. Anybody who has no problem with one probably isn't a conservative Christian, and thus probably has no problem with the other.

You are arguing that the right to marry is as fundamental a human right as that of voting.

I am arguing no such thing. When I said "You clearly think that some people should be enfranchised and others should not be," I was referring to the "franchise" of marriage. I'm sorry if that sounded like "voting" to you; as I pointed out, the right to vote is not the only meaning of "enfranchisement."

Enfranchisement:
1: to set free (as from slavery)
2: to endow with a franchise: as a: to admit to the privileges of a citizen and especially to the right of suffrage b: to admit (a municipality) to political privileges or rights

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Oh, this is very true. Voting is not a fundamental freedom, (as is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). However it is an individual right in that it is apportioned per person. You own the right yourself. Marriage is different from both of these in that it cannot be possessed by a sole individual.

It's really funny to see how BK managed to sidetrack from serious debate to this completely irrelevant individual right thing, leaving everyone puzzled how to grab him by beating the simple fact that marriage involves two persons.

The point of BK, in the first place, was that anti-discrimination (equal protection) applies only to individual rights. I'd say it applies to rights of individuals. With the act of marriage, two individual form a collective body that previously did not exist. It is, basically, a deal. With the same reasoning, you could make the right to make deals, to buy shares, form companies, etc., exclusive.
The "fundamental right" is not marriage itself, the fundamental right is to be equally protected not only in "fundamental" issues, but any law.


The real issue is whether to consider homosexuals a "suspect class" of equal protection or not. There's no way the courts would have upheld any legislation that forbids interracial marriage, e.g.

[Agathon]

The problem with the gay marriage debate is that it is conducted on the grounds of the principle: "If it is voluntary and does not 'affect' others, then it is good". No sane person, even Mill, who thought it up, really believes that.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Agathon
The problem with the gay marriage debate is that it is conducted on the grounds of the principle: "If it is voluntary and does not 'affect' others, then it is good". No sane person, even Mill, who thought it up, really believes that.

Clearly I am insane

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It does make you wonder about latent homosexuality.

I've already argued that almost everyone is essentially bisexual. I am supported by several studies. So yes Ben is right that if gay marriage is legalized less people will opt for classical marital arrangements, I'm not saying many but a few.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by MrFun

Actually the example made sense. The real "huh" comes from the fact that people are more open to extramarital relations than they where 50 years ago. One might argue that since marriage is less important there is nothing stopping homosexuals from having relations without


I personally would allow people to register "communities" whether these are elders living together, relatives or gay couples, the state should recognize this and its social implications.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Agathon
Here's a question. Should the law prevent people marrying their own siblings (of whatever gender)?

No, since the state has no interest in promoting such unions ,but incest should not be illegal there was a thread about this if you remember where I argued strongly for their "rights".